Pro-life laws protecting babies in the womb and fetal surgeries on babies in the womb both exist to protect the lives and health of preborn children. Yet, a recent opinion piece in Stat makes the erroneous claim that new pro-life laws are posing “a serious threat to fetal surgery” and are putting preborn babies at risk.
The fetus is a person
The op-ed by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr. argues that fetal surgery offers parents “a sense of hope” because such surgeries allow doctors “to help before the child is even born.” They also note, “Operating in utero supposes a willingness, on the part of the mother and the medical team, to do everything possible to help an unborn child.”
These two statements are true — and point out that there is a person to be helped in the womb.
The authors appear to be aware that the fetus is a human being who needs help which a doctor can provide through surgery.
One example would be a child with spina bifida. Rather than wait until the child is born to carry out surgery, doctors are now able to perform surgery on the child in the womb, closing the hole that exposes the spine before more damage can be done. Children with spina bifida who have surgery in the womb have better outcomes than children who have surgery after birth.
Despite the existence of this scientific advancement, some mothers of children with spina bifida still opt to have an abortion.
During a procedure to correct spina bifida while still in the womb, Samuel Armas, 21 weeks old in the womb, was having surgery to correct spina bifida. The surgeon was Dr. Joseph P. Bruner. (Photo credit: Michael Clancy)
Maternal autonomy
Even though both fetal surgeries and pro-life laws exist to protect and help human beings in the womb, the authors claim that there is one key difference: autonomy.
“One would think, therefore, that fetal doctors and opponents of abortion are aligned,” state the authors. “While the ultimate goal may be the same, however, fetal surgery cannot happen without maternal autonomy: It means a pregnant woman, of her own free will, places her life in the hands of the surgical team.”
There are, of course, risks to both the mother and the child during fetal surgery as with any other surgery. There are two patients in this case, and their needs must both be weighed to achieve the best possible health outcome for each patient. Fetal surgery, admit the authors, is only used in serious circumstances when the alternative option of not performing the surgery — or of killing the child through abortion — is worse than any possible risks that the surgery imposes.
Though the mother is a second patient and therefore must give her permission for the surgery to take place, this does not separate surgery on a child in the womb from surgery on a child outside of the womb. Both require parental consent.
What’s more, some children have health conditions that require an organ transplant from a living donor. In those cases, one of the child’s parents consents to being the child’s donor — meaning that just as in fetal surgery, both child and parent are patients to save the child’s life or health.
No one would suggest that a two-year-old child be intentionally killed rather than receive a kidney from his mother. And laws protecting preborn children from being killed do not remove a mother’s ability to consent to surgery for both of them. It makes no sense.
Abortion is intentional killing
Yet, the authors claim, “Legislating prenatal medical care and criminalizing termination [intentionally killing a preborn child] will also have unexpected consequences for the fetus, precisely the one whose well-being these new laws are supposed to protect. Many of the restrictive laws that are being proposed in the wake of the Dobbs decision pose a real threat to the health of the unborn child. They create a state of ambiguity for doctors; this, in turn, will lead to second-guessing and delays in treatment.”
But there is no ambiguity in pro-life laws, just as there is no ambiguity in anti-child abuse and murder laws.
There is always a difference between the intentional and direct killing of a human being and an accidental or natural death. The same is true for deaths that occur within the womb. Sometimes it must be decided in court if the death was accidental or intentional.
An induced abortion is always the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child. If a child dies due to complications from a health condition or fetal surgery, his or her death is a tragic accident — it is not the intended outcome.
Doctors of high quality and standards know the difference
Despite the obvious differences between intentional killing and accidental death, the authors claim that doctors are going to be coerced into attempting new and risky procedures that have not yet been found to be effective and safe. The example used is that of transferring a baby in an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tube to the uterus. Though this idea has been discussed in the past, it is not standard practice.
Standard practice — and all pro-life laws — allow for surgery to remove the fallopian tube where the baby has implanted. This surgery saves the mother’s life, but the child unfortunately dies as a secondary result. The child’s death is not intended. Doctors of high quality and standards are aware of this.
In addition, the authors claim that doctors may lose the ability to “offer sound, evidence-based medical information, especially when the news is not good — out of fear of prosecution.
“If a doctor tells a couple that their fetus with trisomy 13 has a very slim chance to survive beyond infancy, might that be interpreted as recommending termination, effectively imposing a gag order on honest medical advice?” the authors ask.
Telling parents that many children with trisomy 13 do not survive infancy is not the same as suggesting the parents kill the child in an abortion, just as telling parents that their 10-year-old child has incurable cancer is not the same as suggesting that parents euthanize that child. Medical statistics are not advice.
A duty to protect
The authors claim that “ambiguous” pro-life laws are provoking “uncertainty and fear” among the medical community, to the point that doctors may “abandon fetal research” altogether. This is nothing but deception. It’s bogus claims like those found in the Stat op-ed that are stoking fear and uncertainty.
Pro-life laws are clear. No law should allow for the direct and intentional killing of an entire group of human beings. Every human being has the right not to be killed.
Even the authors admit this. “Society has a responsibility to protect its members, and just laws ensure that everyone enjoys the right to be healthy and safe,” they conclude. Society also has a responsibility to protect its members in the womb.
No law that allows any innocent human being — inside the womb or out, preborn or born — to be intentionally and directly killed is a just law. Even pro-life laws with so-called “exceptions” are unjust.
